DOCSLIB.ORG

Discrimination and Segregation in Housing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Discrimination and Segregation in Housing DISCRIMINATION AND SEGREGATION IN HOUSING: Continuing Lack of Progress in United States Compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Report to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, July 2014 Submitted in Response to the 2013 Periodic Report of the United States of America Prepared by: Megan Haberle of the Poverty & Race Research Action Council and Jorge Soto of the National Fair Housing Alliance. We are grateful for the significant contributions of staff at those organizations and our other colleagues and civil society partners. Submitted by the undersigned U.S. research and advocacy organizations and scholars: Poverty & Race Research Action Council, Washington, DC National Fair Housing Alliance, Washington, DC The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC The Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights, Washington, DC NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., New York, NY National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Baltimore, MD National Housing Law Project, San Francisco, CA National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Washington, DC The Opportunity Agenda, New York, NY 1 Business and Professional People for the Public Interest, Chicago, IL Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice, Cambridge, MA Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Chicago, IL Empire Justice Center, Rochester, NY Equal Justice Society, San Francisco, CA The Equal Rights Center, Washington, DC Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc., New York, NY Fair Share Housing Center, Cherry Hill, NJ Housing Choice Partners of Illinois, Inc., Chicago, IL Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society, Berkeley, CA Inclusive Communities Project, Dallas, TX Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race & Ethnicity, Columbus, OH Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council, Milwaukee, WI Miami Valley Fair Housing Center, Inc., Dayton, OH Oak Park Regional Housing Center, Oak Park, IL Open Communities Alliance, Hartford, CT The Public Interest Law Project, Oakland, CA Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Chicago, IL Western Center on Law and Poverty, Los Angeles, CA Michelle Adams, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University* John C. Brittain, University of the District of Columbia* Camille Z. Charles, University of Pennsylvania* N. D. B. Connolly, Johns Hopkins University* 2 Okianer Christian Dark, Howard University School of Law* Nancy A. Denton, University at Albany, SUNY* Kathleen C. Engel, Suffolk Law School* Joe Feagin, Texas A&M University* Catherine Fosl, University of Louisville* Lance Freeman, Columbia University* George Galster, Wayne State University* John Goering, Baruch College, City University of New York* Dan Immergluck, Georgia Institute of Technology* William P. Jones, University of Wisconsin, Madison* W. Dennis Keating, Cleveland State University* George Lipsitz, University of California, Santa Barbara* James W. Loewen, University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign* John R. Logan, Brown University* Peter Marcuse, Columbia University* Melvin L. Oliver, University of California, Santa Barbara* Gary Orfield, University of California, Los Angeles* john powell, University of California, Berkeley* Florence Wagman Roisman, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law* Michael P. Seng, The John Marshall Law School* Gregory D. Squires, George Washington University* David R. Williams, Harvard University* (*University affiliation of scholars listed for identification purposes only) 3 I. INTRODUCTION This Shadow Report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is submitted on behalf of United States civil society organizations and academic experts. In spite of U.S. legal standards that are substantially similar to CERD treaty requirements, U.S. policy has failed to address both societal and government discrimination, and continues to support racially and economically segregated housing patterns. Specifically, the United States has failed to respond adequately to the CERD Committee’s 2008 findings on housing segregation and discrimination. Although some limited progress has been made since 2008, the United States remains in non-compliance with both the CERD treaty and its own domestic legal standards. A. Legal Obligations Related to Housing Segregation The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)1 sets forth obligations with respect to housing that are similar to those required by U.S. domestic civil rights law. Both sets of requirements address the significant barriers to racial equality in residential choice that perpetuate segregation and thwart shared access to social resources, including quality education, employment, and community diversity. Those barriers include discrimination by private and public actors, whether proven as intentional or having a needlessly discriminatory effect. They also include policies that perpetuate segregation or fail to apply government resources to promote integration, still a pressing need given the entrenched legacy of segregative federal programs. Domestically, the American public has a strong and longstanding interest in integration and fair housing choice, and the establishment of a legal framework to promote those rights was a hallmark success of the 1960s civil rights movement. This historical focus, still resonant today, has been required largely because of the role of federal programs in enforcing, reinforcing, and incentivizing segregation.2 Under CERD, the United States has accepted the following specific obligations: To ensure the compliance of “all public authorities and public institutions, national and local” with the obligation not to engage in racial discrimination.3 To “review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which,” regardless of intent, “have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists.”4 To “particularly condemn racial segregation” and “undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.”5 In 1995, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued a detailed interpretation of Article 3 explaining that the duty to eradicate segregation includes not only the obligation to cease active discrimination, but 1 The United States signed and ratified CERD in 1994. 2 This occurred, for example, through race-based home lending programs (“redlining”) and the consolidation of subsidized housing in high-poverty, high-minority neighborhoods. See, e.g., Douglas S. Massey & Nancy A. Denton, American Apartheid, 52-58 (1993). 3 CERD, art. 2 § (1)(a), Dec. 21, 1965, 660 U.N.T.S. 195. 4 Id. at art. 2 § (1)(c). 5 Id. at art. 3. 4 also the obligation to take affirmative steps to eliminate the lingering effects of past discrimination.6 It recognized that, although conditions of complete or partial racial segregation may in some countries have been created by governmental policies, a condition of partial segregation may also arise as an intended or unintended consequence of the actions of private persons. To “undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of” the right to housing, and the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.7 Domestic civil rights law makes similar requirements of the U.S. government. The Fair Housing Act (the “FHA” or “Act”)8 broadly prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and other protected characteristics.9 Liability under the FHA encompasses disparate impact discrimination and the perpetuation of segregation, as the federal government has long recognized and as the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) has articulated through regulations.10 The FHA requires that HUD enforce the terms of the law as they relate to discrimination in private housing transactions and in credit markets in conjunction with the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”).11 Other civil rights laws provide related protections: for example, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in federally-funded programs, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act12 encompasses protections specific to fair lending in the housing market. As well as prohibiting discrimination, the FHA requires that the government take measures to toward the Act’s aim of achieving “truly integrated and balanced living patterns.”13 The FHA also requires the federal government and all agencies and grantees involved in federally funded housing to “affirmatively further” fair housing.14 The Act directs the federal government to take affirmative steps to remedy private discrimination, to avoid governmental policies that 15 perpetuate segregation, and to reverse historical patterns of segregation and discrimination. 6 U.N. Comm. on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Aug. 18, 1995, General Recommendation 19, Racial segregation and apartheid (Forty-seventh session, 1995), ¶ 140, U.N. Doc. A/50/18, reprinted in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev.6 at 208 (2003), available at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/genrexix.htm. 7 CERD, supra note 3, art. 5 §§
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Housing Discrimination Complaint Form
    Office of Civil Rights Enforcement HOUSING DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT You must complete this Complaint form and the accompanying Intake Questionnaire and return both documents to the address, email or fax number listed below within one (1) year of the last incident of discrimination, harassment or retaliation. Pursuant to Oklahoma law, a copy of the Complaint will be sent to the Responding Party. The Intake Questionnaire is for OCRE use only and will remain confidential during the investigation. Oklahoma law prohibits retaliation against individuals who exercise their right to file a complaint. GENERAL INFORMATION YOUR INFORMATION: RESPONDING PARTY INFORMATION: Full Name: Name of Landlord, Property Owner, Bank, Etc.: Address: Address: City, State, Zip Code: City, State, Zip Code: HOUSING DISCRIMINATION BASIS I have been discriminated against because of my (check all that apply): Race Color Religion Sex Pregnancy Age National Origin Disability Familial Status Retaliation Did the discrimination include unwelcome and offensive harassment? Yes No Did the discrimination include sexual harassment? Yes No Date (month, day, and year) when the last incident of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation occurred: ____________ Full name and job title of each person involved in the discrimination, harassment, or retaliation: __________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ I
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Transcript
    >> I just moved to a new city. I just moved to a new city. And finding a decent place to live was a real challenge. I mean, there are so many hoops to jump through. But just a couple of generations ago, there were even more barriers for someone who looks like me. I didn't see any "whites only" signs at the open house. When I went to sign the contract, the landlord didn't lie to me and tell me the apartment was already rented to someone else. Before President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Fair Housing Bill in 1968, that kind of craziness was totally legal. Landlords could refuse to sell or rent housing because of someone's race, color, religion, sex, family status, national origin, or pretty much any reason. But the Fair Housing Act changed all of that, right? It eliminated housing discrimination, fostered integration, pretty much solved all of our problems. Eh, not so much. So what does that mean for us? What is the impact of housing discrimination today? Let's take a step back. Near the end of the Civil War, General William T. Sherman wanted to set aside land for formerly enslaved families so they weren't starting from scratch. The rallying cry was "40 acres and a mule." But it never happened. Lincoln was assassinated. And Sherman's order was revoked. In spite of this, black communities started to advance. There were black newspapers, black-owned businesses, even black senators within a decade of the end of the Civil War.
    [Show full text]
  • Housing-Related Hate Activity
    Housing-Related Hate Activity National Fair Housing Alliance Agenda • Fair Housing Act’s prohibition against housing-related hate activity • Responding to housing-related hate activity – Forming a response network – Rapid response protocols Fair Housing Act • Title VIII of Civil Rights Act of 1968 • Prohibits discrimination in housing-related transactions because of: –Race – Color – Religion – National origin –Sex – Disability – Familial status (children under age 18 in household) Housing Discrimination • Any attempt to prohibit or limit free and fair housing choice because of a protected class • Applies to all housing-related transactions – Rentals – Real estate sales – Mortgage lending – Appraisals – Homeowners insurance – Zoning Housing-Related Hate Activity • Unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights, such as: – Renting or buying a house – Reasonable accommodations/modifications – Filing a fair housing complaint • Unlawful to retaliate against someone for exercising fair housing rights – Or for helping another person exercise fair housing rights • 42 U.S.C. § 3617 HUD Regulation • 24 C.F.R. § 100.400 • Unlawful to: – Threaten, intimidate, or interfere with persons in their enjoyment of a dwelling because of their protected class or the protected class of visitors/associates – Intimidate or threaten any person because that person is engaging in activities designed to make other persons aware of, or encouraging such other persons to exercise, fair housing
    [Show full text]
  • Housing Discrimination Against Victims of Domestic Violence
    Housing Discrimination Against Victims of Domestic Violence By Wendy R. Weiser and Geoff Boehm In their government-subsidized two-bed- The notice referred to the August 2 incident room apartment on the morning of August in which Ms. Alvera was injured.1 2, 1999, Tiffanie Ann Alvera’s husband Ms. Alvera’s story is not an aberra- physically assaulted her. The police arrest- tion. Women across the country are ed him, placed him in jail, and charged denied housing opportunities or evicted him with assault. He was eventually con- from their housing simply because they victed. That same day, after receiving med- are victims of domestic violence.2 Land- ical treatment for the injuries her husband lords who deny housing to victims of inflicted, Ms. Alvera went to Clatsop domestic violence not only heap further County Circuit Court and obtained a punishment on innocent victims but also restraining order prohibiting him from help cement the cycle of violence. By coming near her or into the apartment forcing victims to make the terrible choice complex where they lived. When she gave between suffering in silence and losing the resident manager of the apartment their housing, those landlords effectively complex a copy of the restraining order, discourage victims from reporting their she was told that the management com- abuse or otherwise taking steps to pro- pany had decided to evict her as a result tect themselves. Those victims who do of the incident of domestic violence. Two undertake to protect themselves find it days later Ms. Alvera’s landlord served her much more difficult to achieve indepen- with a twenty-four-hour notice terminat- dence from their abusers when they are ing her tenancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing the Cost of Crime Free Alternative Strategies to Crime Free/Nuisance Property Ordinances in Illinois
    Reducing the Cost of Crime Free Alternative Strategies to Crime Free/Nuisance Property Ordinances in Illinois A Model Ordinance by Open Communities and The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law Reducing the Cost of Crime Free: Alternative Strategies to Crime Free/Nuisance Property Ordinances in Illinois In August 2013 the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law released The Cost of Being “Crime Free”: Legal and Practical Consequences of Crime Free Rental Housing and Nuisance Property Ordinances.1 This report outlined some of the real costs to local municipalities who enact these ordinances, including the serious fair housing implications of advancing and enforcing such laws. Reducing the Cost of Crime Free: Alternative Strategies to Crime Free/Nuisance Property Ordinances in Illinois responds to the growing recognition that these local ordinances may harm tenants and landlords, impede fair housing, and expose local governments to liability. It offers municipalities the tools necessary to create rental housing policies that value quality, safe rental housing while also protecting protected classes and respecting the rights of landlords and tenants. Both Open Communities and The Shriver Center are available to provide technical assistance to local municipalities in the drafting of these ordinances. Cover: Multifamily rental buildings left to right Evanston, Niles, Skokie, and Park Ridge: Photos by Brendan Saunders 1 http://povertylaw.org/sites/default/files/files/housing-justice/cost-of-being-crime-free.pdf OPEN COMMUNITIES AND THE SARGENT SHRIVER NATIONAL CENTER ON POVERTY LAW 1 Acknowledgements Open Communities and the Shriver Center would like to thank the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Housing Initiatives Program, for its support of this project’s concept: to strengthen a municipality’s ability to provide for decent and safe rental housing in its jurisdiction while honoring the fair housing and due process rights of tenants.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Fair Housing
    THE FAIR HOUSING ACT: HOUSING RELATED HATE ACTS VANESSA A. BULLOCK, ESQ. [email protected] 731-426-1332 Disclaimer The work that provided the basis for this presentation was supported by funding under a grant with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and presenter are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this presentation. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Government. ​ THE FAIR HOUSING ACT Protected Classes The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing- related transactions because of: ▪ Race ▪ Color ▪ Religion ▪ National Origin ▪ Sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation) ▪ Familial Status (children under the age of 18 in household) ▪ Disability Status The Fair Housing Act: Covered Markets Rental Sales Lending Insurance Zoning Advertisements All other areas connected with residential housing The Fair Housing Act: Covered Dwellings Private and Subsidized Units Single Family Homes Multi-Family Units Shelters Group Homes Assisted Living College Dormitories All Other Residential Housing: “Where I live” The Fair Housing Act: Covered Entities Owners Managers/Management Companies Homeowner’s Associations/Condo Boards Lenders Real Estate Agents Governments Insurers All persons/entities involved with residential housing Prohibited Activities ▪ Refusing to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or otherwise making unavailable
    [Show full text]
  • Removing Housing Barriers to Women's Workforce Participation
    Removing Housing Barriers to Women’s Workforce Participation YWCA believes that safe, decent, affordable housing is vital for women’s successful participation in the workforce. Housing stability supports women’s ability to find and retain employment, attend education classes, and participate in job training programs. Moreover, securing affordable housing enhances women’s economic security because more resources are available for child care, health care, education, nutrition, and other necessities. Access to safe and affordable housing also plays a critical role in empowering survivors of domestic violence to recover from their experiences with violence.i Despite the critical role that housing plays in women’s workforce participation and overall economic stability, high costs, affordable housing shortages, discrimination, and other factors place safe, decent, affordable housing out of reach for many women – particularly women of color, lower income women, working mothers, and survivors of domestic violence. This briefing paper explores the connections between housing and employment; factors that reduce access to safe, quality housing for lower income households; and policy solutions that would address housing barriers to successful workplace participation for women, particularly women of color. Since 1858, YWCA housing programs have provided women with a firm foundation to further their educations and to more fully participate in the workforce. YWCA currently provides housing and specialized services for more than 35,000 women and family
    [Show full text]
  • Errata Sheet Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice February 11
    Errata Sheet Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice February 11, 2020 Marin County Board of Supervisors The following changes will be made to the 2020 Marin County of Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, subject to the approval of the Marin County Board of Supervisors: 1. Page 28 – Marin Transit Authority should be changed to Marin Transit 2017 data on ridership should be as follows: 29% of riders were White; 52% were Latinx; 7% were African American; 5% were Asian and 7% were other. 2. Page 37, Paragraph 4 should read: In the 2017-2018 school year, 127 students were enrolled in Bayside MLK of which 3.9% were White, 27.6% were Latinx, 7.1% were Asian, 9.4% identified as two or more races and 50.4% were African American 3. Page 55, Section 5.3, Changes in Homeownership, Second sentence should read: In 2017, 64.2% of Marin households owned their homes County of Marin Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice February 2020 Prepared by the Marin County Community Development Agency 0 Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 1 Introduction and General Summary of the Analysis 7 1.1 Purpose of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 7 1.2 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 7 1.3 Definition of Impediments 8 1.4 Protected Classes 8 1.4.1 Race and Ethnicity 8 1.5 Methodology and Data Collection 9 2 Jurisdictional Background Information 12 2.1 County Demographics 12 2.2 Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area 12 2.3 Geography 12 2.4 Available Land for Development 12 2.5 Zoning Codes 13 2.6 Marin County
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Statements of Interest and FRAP 29(A)(4)(A) Statements
    Appendix A: Statements of Interest and FRAP 29(a)(4)(A) Statements 1. National Housing Law Project The National Housing Law Project (NHLP) is a nonprofit organization that advances housing justice for poor people and communities, predominantly through technical assistance and training to legal aid attorneys and co-counseling on key litigation. NHLP works with organizers and other advocacy and service organizations to strengthening and enforce tenants’ rights, increase housing opportunities for underserved communities, and preserve and expand the nation’s supply of safe and affordable homes. In addition to various other publications and training materials, since 1981 NHLP has published HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights. Commonly known as the “Greenbook,” this volume—now on its fourth edition and regularly supplemented between editions—is known as the seminal authority on HUD tenants and program participants’ rights by tenant advocates and other housing professionals throughout the country. NHLP also coordinates the Housing Justice Network, a collection of over 1,000 legal services attorneys, advocates, and organizers from around the country. The network has actively shared resources and collaborated on important and complex housing law issues for over 40 years, including through a dynamic listserv, working groups, and a periodic national conference. NHLP has been specifically involved with the implementation of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation, including by providing training and developing AFFH materials as a subcontracting technical assistance provider for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). NHLP has also provided training and technical assistance to members of the Housing Justice Network and other stakeholders regarding 1 implementation of the AFFH Rule, including in-depth assistance to advocates in San Mateo County, California, who participated in that County’s regional Assessment of Fair Housing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Segregation of Opportunities (2005)
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Studies Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity 2005 The egS regation of Opportunities John Lukehart University of Minnesota Law School Tom Luce Jason Reece Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/imo_studies Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John Lukehart, Tom Luce & Jason Reece, The Segregation of Opportunities (2005). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Studies collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Segregation of Opportunities The Structure of Advantage and Disadvantage in the Chicago Region A Report of the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities John Lukehart Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities Tom Luce Institute on Race and Poverty University of Minnesota Jason Reece Kirwan Institute on Race and Ethnicity The Ohio State University May 2005 Acknowledgements The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities would like to thank the many contributors to this report. First of all, we want to acknowledge the tremendous contributions made by folks at the Institute on Race and Poverty (IRP) at the University of Minnesota and the Kirwan Institute on Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State. Tom Luce, research director at IRP, did the lion’s share of identifying, collecting, and analyzing the data and developing the methods for presenting it in a meaningful and coherent way. Jason Reece, research associate at the Kirwan Institute, provided support in this effort. Myron Orfield, director at IRP, and john powell, director at the Kirwan Institute have provided essential guidance, as well as significant in-kind financial support, to make this study possible.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conflict Between Religious Exercise and Efforts to Eradicate
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 53 | Issue 1 Article 10 Winter 1-1-1996 The onflicC t Between Religious Exercise and Efforts to Eradicate Housing Discrimination Against Nontraditional Couples: Should Free Exercise Protect Landlord Bias? Scott A. Johnson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Scott A. Johnson, The Conflict Between Religious Exercise and Efforts to Eradicate Housing Discrimination Against Nontraditional Couples: Should Free Exercise Protect Landlord Bias?, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 351 (1996), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol53/iss1/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Conflict Between Religious Exercise and Efforts to Eradicate Housing Discrimination Against Nontraditional Couples: Should Free Exercise Protect Landlord Bias? Scott A. Johnson L Introduction Traditional religious beliefs have increasingly come under fire in today's society, in part due to the widening gulf that exists between the morals and ideals of traditional religions and the views of modem secular society. The rise of the religious right in the political arena has brought about a rhetoric derogatory of all who place religion as the central pillar in their lives. The message of this rhetoric, in the words of Professor Stephen Carter, is that "believing deeply in the tenets of one's faith represents a kind of mystical irrationality, something that thoughtful, public-spirited American citizens would do better to avoid."' Yet despite this vocal distrust of religion, many Americans hold freedom of religious belief dear.
    [Show full text]
  • Rental Housing Discrimination on the Basis of Mental Disabilities: Results of Pilot Testing
    Rental Housing Discrimination on the Basis of Mental Disabilities: Results of Pilot Testing Study of Rental Housing Discrimination on the Basis of Mental Disabilities: Final Report U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT Prepared by Joy Hammel Janet Smith University of Illinois at Chicago Susan Scovill Consultant Ron Campbell M. Davis and Company, Inc. Rui Duan HDR, Inc. Prepared for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research Submitted by M. Davis and Company, Inc. August 2017 Acknowledgments This project could not have been completed successfully Human Policy, Law, and Disability Studies; Marti Knisely, without the commitment, dedication, and hard work Community Support Initiative, the Technical Assistance of many. We particularly thank the research team and Collaborative; Katherine McDonald, Associate Professor, administrative support staff at M. Davis and Company, Inc. Syracuse University; Tia Nelis, Self-Advocacy Specialist at Thanks are also due to Madeline Hoffman for assisting with the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, Institute coordination, quality control, and guidance throughout on Disability and Human Development, University of the testing process and to May Raad of HDR, Inc., for their Illinois at Chicago; Jan Peters, Executive Vice President analysis contributions. Finally, this study would not have and Chief Operating Officer, Eden Housing Inc.; Susan been possible without the work of our local testing organi- Ann Silverstein, Senior Attorney, Foundation Litigation, zations, Access Living in Chicago (Jamie Wichman, Kelly AARP; Karen Tamley, Commissioner of the Mayor’s Office Chen) and The Equal Rights Center in Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]